maybe i'm being naieve but DCX had their agenda, & maybe no one ever thought of this. Afterall, theres a huge aftermarket for parts for Jeeps & the majority of us owners like to do the work ourselves. Why pay a premium for it from the factory? Of course leasing an ORT comes to mind.

FWIW, a TRD pacakge on a Tacoma has a little bit more than the ridiculous sticker on the side. It has:

* Locking rear diff
* Progressive rate front coil springs
* Bilstein shocks
* Thinner stabilizer bar
* skid plates
* BFG 265/70/16 AT tires
* tow hooks
* 115v power outlet in bed

Dont get me wrong - I'm not saying the TRD a bad thing. I just seem to see them everywhere. I just dont want to see the potiental of what ORT could be turn into just another trim level. Like X, Sahara, Rubicon, and ORD. Just like the SRT is a trim level of the Grands.

Ah, I see what you're saying. I think ORT will be a trim level. But it will be a low-availability, special-order trim level that costs a lot more than sahara or rubicon. You won't see them on dealer lots. Just like the SRT-8 Grands. They're rare. They're a stupid idea, too, but rare nonetheless.

You do see a ton of TRD Tacomas. The dealers load up with them. It's because they sell like hotcakes. Just like JKLs. There are more TRD Tacomas on the road than there are SR5 Tacomas. Right now, I think if you want a very off-road capable vehicle that you don't have to build, your two best options are first, a JK or JKL Rubicon, and second a TRD off-road Tacoma 4x4.

Oh, and if you want a reason to make fun of TRD Tacoma drivers, note that many of them are 2x4. Yeah, they sell a 2x4 "off-road" truck.

Disclaimer: I own a late model Tacoma 4x4. It's not a TRD model. If it was, I'd pull the heinous stickers off the side of it.

Wow, there's a lot of positive spin on this one. I think they're on to something.
1.) Independant Jeep-Styled dealerships with themed showrooms and ORT tracks where possible.
2.) A parts dept named "ORT" that has the gear enthusiasts want at slightly overpriced rates installed at the dealership.
3.) Optional small-block V8's and diesels
4.) An ORT division lead by enthusiasts like Steve Houtmann & the guys at AEV (aka: Jeep Skunkwerks).

AEV is not Mopar Sunkwerks.

thats a great point! u know that no matter what it costs there will still be plenty of people on the internet complaining that it doesn't go far enough. i think that the ORT packages will be like the majority of rubicons on the road. about 10% of them will actually see punishing off-road conditions. most people buy them for how they look. with that in mind, a factory lifted jeep with big, chunky tires and tube steel everywhere will probably turn on alot of buyers. i say go for it and charge as much as u possibly can!!

No, No, No, not EVERYONE wants diesel power!!!!!!!! I deal with diesel engines at work everyday. I don't want to deal with them in my daily driver, especially in the cold winter climate of northwest Indiana. Give me a good fuel efficient petro powered 6 cylinder and I will be a happy camper. Until then, I will continue to love my gas guzzling, polution causing 4.0L inline 6 (with 259,450 miles).

BTW, this is good news from Jeep.

"Get Out of the Way, or Smile as You Go Under"

I don't think it's particularly responsible as off-highway enthusiasts to boast the fuel inefficiency and pollution-causing characteristics of the current Jeep engine line-up. Diesel engines are far more torquey than their petrol counterparts (which is what off-highway enthusiasts need), are far more fuel efficient, and used in conjunction with biofuels, are far less pollutant. Remember, the future of off-highway use hinges on how we portray ourselves as off-highway enthusiasts to our detractors. The idea of ORT in conjunction with having fun in a responsible manner could be a huge plus for Jeep branding going forward.

Very well put. I remember an article a while back about the JKL CRD getting near 30mpg real-world in the UK. If this is true, then I am very excited by the idea of having a diesel in my next Jeep.

Any SUV leaves a bad taste in the mouths of many people now that "green" is held in such high regard. It's well known amongst Jeepers we generally really care about our planet. We tread lightly, clean up after ourselves, and are much more in touch with nature than most prius owners. But to outsiders, we're just gas-guzzlin' Earth killers. If Chrysler focused on making Jeeps a bit more "green" and touted the tread-lightly philosophy, that image could change to better match how we really are.

JPFreek 1, sorry if I offended you. However, I am a responsible Jeep owner. With 259,000+ miles on my XJ (which is an offical Prius Recovery Unit), it has saved countless trees, cans, and any number of other natural resources. BTW, my current set of tires have 57,000+ miles on them. They, too, have reduced the consumption of oil and other natural resources. Let's see, I change my oil every 3,000 miles, but the filter only every 6,000 miles. I'm sure that saved countless natural resources over the life of my gas guzzling 4.0L engine. I'm sure I could think of more.

I stand by my politically incorrect statement.

Off roaders have been using gasoline for much longer than they have been using diesel. They don't need diesel. Some of them WANT diesel.

Off roaders will not succeed in promoting their sport if they kowtow to enviromentalist wannabee--also known at anti recreationists. These people do not want any SUV on the road--no matter how environmential friendly the vehicle is. It could have zero emissions and they will still find fault with something.

The future of Jeep and other SUV mfg. is not trying to pacify these jerks, it is to expose them for what they are: Power hungry people who think they have all the "politically correct" ideas.

BTW, I'm sure you post on one of THEIR boards about how irresponsible it is for anti-recreationists, who proudly display the "enviornmental" license plate, to pass you on the freeway when you're doing 70-80 (or more) MPH?

Also very well put. Reminds me of Piven going off about the "cause-heads" in PCU.

holy cow a PCU refference!! you're my hero!!

AND HOW RIGHT YOU ARE, bkcurtis! Remember that article about JEEP Wrangler being the "greenest" most environmentally conscious vehicle if you consider its lifecyle from womb to-tomb? Hopefully that tradition continues with the JK's. Here it is:

"Buyers looking for cars that are kinder to the environment are now faced with a new –and very surprising – dilemma. Results of a major new investigation show that the cars you may well have thought were the greenest ones to buy simply aren’t. The shock results of the CNW research show that the greenest cars you can buy right now wear Jeep® badges. The three-year investigation by Oregon-based CNW Marketing Research applies a new ‘dust to dust’ yardstick to the life cycle of a car, which measures the environmental impact of a vehicle from the date of its manufacture right up to the date it’s scrapped. It takes in not just the car’s fuel consumption and CO2 emissions, but also the energy used in its design and production both in car assembly plants and by suppliers of parts and subassemblies.
The energy consumed in transporting cars to dealers and in maintaining, servicing and scrapping them is also taken into account. But why aren’t today’s exotic hybrids at the top of the table? It’s because vehicles like Jeeps use established technologies which use less energy in manufacture and which share many parts among other vehicles. Both these factors contribute towards a noticeable reduction in the energy used in vehicle manufacture. Cars like the Jeep® Wrangler also tend to have a longer life cycle, adding ‘green value’ at the end of the car’s lifespan as well as at the beginning.
Applying this ‘dust to dust’ analysis of energy use shows cars with some of the lowest CO2 emissions and most friendly environmental credentials in quite a different light. Amazingly, neither of the two hybrids on sale in the UK today finished in the top 50 of the CNW investigation.
Hybrid cars show up poorly because of the energy used in their manufacture and in the disposal and replacement of high-energy-use items like batteries and electric motors, and in their use of lighter weight construction materials like lightweight steels which use more energy and which are harder to recycle.

By contrast, the simple but immensely strong construction of cars like the Jeep® Wrangler, Cherokee, Grand Cherokee and Commander make them a recycler’s dream. To make the CNW’s report meaningful to car buyers, energy usage was turned into the amount of petrol needed to supply the same amount of energy. This was then translated into the cost of the petrol in dollars. The research also included the average fuel consumption over the car’s life based on real-world figures submitted by over half a million Americans. This total figure was then divided by the mileage over a vehicle’s life, which ranges from 151,000 miles for a small hatchback to 300,000 for a big 4x4. The report’s economy figures also reflect the reduction in economy as cars age and their engines and exhausts wear out. CNW executive Art Spinella clearly believes that it’s time for today’s car buyers to look at the bigger picture. ‘Basing purchase decisions solely on fuel economy or vehicle size does not get to the heart of energy usage,’ he says. ‘Fuel efficiency is only a small part of the total energy needed to design, develop, produce, drive and dispose of a vehicle. ‘In fact, some of the less fuel-efficient vehicles actually have extremely good “dust to dust” energy consumption.
Conversely, some hybrids — at least the current hybrids — are inferior in total energy demands while offering high fuel-efficiency.’ Put simply, according to CNW, while a modern hybrid uses less fuel and produces lower exhaust emissions, the price society pays in overall energy costs is higher. The total energy cost rates of the most expensive vehicle in the survey (a luxury non-hybrid) came up nearly 20 times higher than the Jeep® Wrangler’s winning 38p per mile rate.
So, the dust-to-dust cost of Jeeps are about as low as it goes. But that’s not the end of the good news: buying a Jeep® doesn’t cost a fortune either.
The Wrangler 4.0 Jamboree Soft-top has a £16,470 on the road pricetag. A pretty small price to pay for good, clean fun – and an even cleaner conscience."

MarkH,
Thanks for reposting that article. If Jeep was smart, they would do a whole marketing campaign based on the article.

FWIW, with today's engine oils, you can pretty easily go 5,000 or 6,000+ btwn changes without issue. I run both our Jeeps at 5,000mi oil change intervals with Mobil1, and our truck (DIESEL) is on a 12,000mi interval with Royal Purple. IMHO it's also worthwhile to run a reusable air filter to keep that much more trash out of our landfills.

Diesels aren't for everyone, but as I've said before, for a lot of us they're exactly what we're begging for... fuel efficient and torquey. Personally I'd take a little 4-banger turbo diesel over a 6-cyl gas motor any day.

I'm with ya on both accounts. I run Mobil 1 with 10K intervals in 3 Jeeps (ran 1 Wrangler to 250K miles & it was still running strong when I sold it for $3400!!)

One of the products my company makes is viscosity sensors to determine oil change intervals. In future years, these may become prevalent in all cars... Depending on the type of driving you do, you may see oil change intervals that go way beyond 5k miles for traditional oils and way beyond 10K miles for synthetic oils... if you want to believe the sensors, that is...

The air tubes/reusable cone filters are a great way to get some cheap HP.

x2 The ORT idea is definitely a positive direction for Chrysler and Jeep. GM has out-marketed Chrysler and now a large number of (non-enthusiast) Americans seem to equate Hummer with off-road, rather than Jeep. Jeep can use ideas like ORT to reclaim their rightful place as "King of the Hill" as it were.

I've always thought that an SRT Jeep was a silly idea, kind of like an ORT Durango would probably not really be a big seller (nor have much of a point).

Jeep--bring on ORT models, and watch them sell (and be sure to give Jeep its own dealerships, with sales staff who know, drive, and love Jeeps).

I think they'd still put in big engines, but they'd be big workhorse engines with gobs or torque, instead of the SRT engines which have gobs of HP at high RPMs.

I wouldn't mind a JKL with that new 4.7 magnum and it's 60hp and 10% FP gain over the old 4.7 magnum. That engine's lighter than the 5.7 Hemi and has far more balls than the minivan 6.

they better NOT put a hemi in those ORT jeeps! u don't see any of the rock crawler buggies running hemis do u? off-road is all about tourque and gearing. with the right gears u can make a smaller lighter engine work alot better then anything with a V8 in it on the trail. if u want to go fast buy a Porsche.